|
Post by quincannon on Oct 5, 2017 14:54:58 GMT
It is never the weapon gentlemen. It is the man behind the weapon. The point being that Corporal Stein would have probably found a way to do much the same had he been armed with flintlock musket or bow and arrow. It is always the man.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Oct 5, 2017 20:52:04 GMT
He would probably gotten a fair # with piano wire and knife.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Oct 7, 2017 15:03:51 GMT
|
|
|
Weapons
Oct 2, 2023 17:41:31 GMT
via mobile
Post by Elwood on Oct 2, 2023 17:41:31 GMT
Picked up a cool Guns of the West magazine (fall 2023 issue) at truck stop on a travel recently. Good article on the a couple of weapons. This year is the 150th anniversary of issuance of the 1873 Winchester as well as the Springfield carbine 45-70 used by the army. If only a company with Custer had been armed with the Winchesters, then again, the government would’ve probably provided all of 3 rounds a month for practice. Article stated an experienced soldier could get off 8-10 rounds a minute with the Springfield. Lack of training and heat of battle no doubt reduced those numbers.
My Dad left my brother and me several Winchester 94 models but he had no 73 model. I saw one at Cabelas going for $1200. Uberti, an Italian company, has the contract to make them today but they are made in the US. This model was beautiful. I have to get one on my next trip back to Texas in a week or so. Anyone have a 73?
|
|
colt45
First Lieutenant
Posts: 439
|
Post by colt45 on Oct 4, 2023 20:26:54 GMT
I have a Uberti 1873 in 45 Long Colt, and a Winchester 1873 in 38/357. Both are wonderful guns. They see regular use in cowboy action shooting and perform very well. They are also easy to take apart for cleaning and any needed repairs. I don't have an original 1873, which was chambered mainly in 44/40.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 5, 2023 4:12:33 GMT
Mister E. I do not think it would have changed outcomes if all of those 12 companies had been armed with a repeating rifle of any sort, be it Winchester, Henry, or Single shot Springfield (either carbine or rifle). Additionally, I do not think the outcome would have materially changed even if they had been armed with an 03 Springfield of a later vintage. I point to the Springfield, a magnificent combat rifle, because it was much easier to load than either Winchester or Henry.
The problem as I see it up north was twofold, the amount of ammunition available, and the relative position of the opposing forces themselves. No matter how well trained the soldiers were, they were fixed, and the amount of ammunition available diminished exponentially. The rate of fire of three or four rounds apiece per minute would reduce the ammunition supply to near bingo in 10-15 minutes. That may be acceptable when you can maneuver away from the attacking force, by single or multiple bounds, but that was not the case here. Therefore I find it the height of folly to play the if only game, in this particular circumstance. You weren't doing that. On the contrary you were wondering out loud like we all do.
I write this then only so we may all guard against silver bullet solutions. There are none. The whole situation must be looked at. It is sort of like someone saying that ten squadrons of P51 Mustangs at Pearl Harbor would have defeated the Japanese attack on 7 December. NO IT WOULD NOT in and of itself. If those ten squadrons were on the ground as the P40's were, they would have been destroyed on the ground the same way the P40's were. Were those 10 squadrons given adequate warning and were in the air flown by well trained pilots such as were found in the 8th Air Force in 1944-45 there would not have been a Japanese aircraft that returned to those carriers.
|
|
|
Weapons
Oct 5, 2023 17:21:45 GMT
via mobile
Post by Elwood on Oct 5, 2023 17:21:45 GMT
Well I was just thinking if it was me up there at LST or Calhoun Hill with a 100 rounds of rifle ammo and 100’s of Indians coming at me, I’d prefer a 73 Winchester. I know by ‘76 lots of folks out west carried the Winchester and pistol(s) chambered in 44-40, both guns. Same ammo, less weight than the 45-70, right? Like you say, just thinking out loud. But whether you carry the rifle Jimmy Stewart carried in ‘73 Winchester or a piece of junk, lack of training kinda defeats the whole argument.
|
|
|
Weapons
Oct 5, 2023 17:29:30 GMT
via mobile
Post by Elwood on Oct 5, 2023 17:29:30 GMT
I have a Uberti 1873 in 45 Long Colt, and a Winchester 1873 in 38/357. Both are wonderful guns. They see regular use in cowboy action shooting and perform very well. They are also easy to take apart for cleaning and any needed repairs. I don't have an original 1873, which was chambered mainly in 44/40. Nice. When you say you have a Winchester 73, what year was that made. Didn’t Winchester stop the 73 line in the 1920’s? The Uberti I saw was .357 m. Which is what I’d want as I have a couple hundred rounds of that caliber. How long have you had the Uberti? I’ve seen original ‘73’s at gun shows but if they’re in good condition and pre-1900, you’re talking some decent bucks for purchase.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 5, 2023 18:13:49 GMT
Given a choice between a Winchester 73 and a Springfield single shot carbine, I would make the same choice you did Mister E. I do not know how many rounds a Winchester 73 carries. Ignorance is sometimes blissful, but at times like these it brings one up short. What I am not ignorant about is the time it takes to reload once the magazine is empty. That is my concern with that rifle.
I doubt they had a hundred rounds, or if they did how many rounds were accessible? Probably around forty on their person. Consider this, under the exact same circumstances could a modern well trained soldier with an assault rifle, but only two magazines of 20 rounds a piece, have done any better or changed any outcomes. I do not think so, but it is certainly food for discussion.
|
|
colt45
First Lieutenant
Posts: 439
|
Post by colt45 on Oct 5, 2023 18:59:37 GMT
Elwood, Both my rifles are of modern manufacture. The 357 will hold 10+1. My 45 is a 24" barrel and will hold 12+1. I've had the Uberti about 15 years, the Winchester about 3. Both are the 1873 design (reproductions).
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Oct 5, 2023 19:55:07 GMT
I think the point to make here is the Accuracy of the shooters, the soldiers themselves. AZ has made the point about how the Indians fought, if they are not taking casualties then the press ahead, then if their enemy break, they rush in for the kill. I would guess that if the soldiers had modern weapons and could actualy hit their targets, then once the first rush of Indians lose say 20 men and they go to ground, then they rush again and lose even more, then they would keep their distance. As AZ said, if they are being shot off feet from the get go, then they halft and regroup, if they get shot off again, then they suddenly realise that this is a bad day to fight, but seeing that the soldiers missed them, which allowed them to even do bravery runs, then it was a good day to fight.
If they did take a large numbers of casualties, then they would withdraw but not leave the field, the village was still under threat, but if the soldiers moved back or even just stay on the eastern side of the river, I dont think the Indians would attack, but just keep their distance and monitor the soldiers.
Ian
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 5, 2023 21:30:25 GMT
Ian: If you expect your adversary to fight the way you expect him to fight, then you might also expect to lose.
Steve should know better than to fill your head with nonsense, and it is nonsense to think all Indians, all tribes all individuals will meet some templated mental pattern of expectations. Human beings do not work that way. Some are casualty adverse, as you point out, others particularly our eastern tribes would make Berserkers think they these Indians were the real Berserkers. Read about Oriskany sometime and Braddock.
|
|
|
Weapons
Oct 6, 2023 2:18:03 GMT
via mobile
Post by Elwood on Oct 6, 2023 2:18:03 GMT
Given a choice between a Winchester 73 and a Springfield single shot carbine, I would make the same choice you did Mister E. I do not know how many rounds a Winchester 73 carries. Ignorance is sometimes blissful, but at times like these it brings one up short. What I am not ignorant about is the time it takes to reload once the magazine is empty. That is my concern with that rifle. I doubt they had a hundred rounds, or if they did how many rounds were accessible? Probably around forty on their person. Consider this, under the exact same circumstances could a modern well trained soldier with an assault rifle, but only two magazines of 20 rounds a piece, have done any better or changed any outcomes. I do not think so, but it is certainly food for discussion. 100 rounds was planted in my brain for some reason. I believe that the troopers carried 24 rounds for their pistols. Maybe it was 40 for the rifles. My error. No wonder Cooke scribbled down “PS Bring Packs”.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 6, 2023 2:45:16 GMT
No I think 100 rounds was close to being accurate as far as the number of rounds in the possession of soldiers that day. It could be slightly less of course because some may have expended ammunition during the campaign prior to the 25th. My figure of 40 of course is imprecise. Some may have had more some less on their person. I discount the rounds carried in saddlebags, simply because dragoon tactics called for dismounting to skirmish and place fire on the enemy. Lose your horses or have them 75 to 100 yards back of the firing line does not do a hell of a lot of good in a knock down drag out fire fight.
|
|
|
Weapons
Oct 6, 2023 2:53:48 GMT
via mobile
Post by Elwood on Oct 6, 2023 2:53:48 GMT
Yes, 100 rifle rounds but most of those in the saddlebags.
|
|